@Conor O'Gorman to allow for greater attendance opportunity at the BASC AGM has BASC considered holding the meeting at a different location? Possibly alternating annually between North, Middle and South.
An huge own goal by the Shooting Organizations - the lead farce
- Thread starter cjm1066
- Start date
- Status
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
Why would they do that? Might disturb their narrative!
@Conor O'Gorman
Interestingly this came through my email a couple of days ago.
This concerns me as much as BASC thinks the lead ban will not affect my shooting - HEEHAW!
Don’t get me wrong, I feel sorry for the people on the ground, but for the shooters and shoot owners - tough luck.
That’s what I feel BASC are saying to me and my funds for shooting and stalking.
I have no interest in big bags (or sustainable as BASC purport them to be but we all know that’s a euphemism as was shown in the minutes from their meeting Feb 2020).
I’m more keen to keep the grey’s population healthy.
Pheasant wise, if I can get 2 maybe 3 brace a year, I’m happy.
Only when BASC realise that all shooters matter, and not just those with money, will they get my support.
Interestingly this came through my email a couple of days ago.
This concerns me as much as BASC thinks the lead ban will not affect my shooting - HEEHAW!
Don’t get me wrong, I feel sorry for the people on the ground, but for the shooters and shoot owners - tough luck.
That’s what I feel BASC are saying to me and my funds for shooting and stalking.
I have no interest in big bags (or sustainable as BASC purport them to be but we all know that’s a euphemism as was shown in the minutes from their meeting Feb 2020).
I’m more keen to keep the grey’s population healthy.
Pheasant wise, if I can get 2 maybe 3 brace a year, I’m happy.
Only when BASC realise that all shooters matter, and not just those with money, will they get my support.
Just have a national members vote Email/Form in the Magazine sae with membership number.
(Yes) to keep as we are
(No) to change to all steel.
Stop dancing to the EU puppet master.
And stop planting wild bird cover as we need to grow crops there are no harsh winters now so birds thrive well.
As I provided the opening post, it’s perhaps time to draw this post to a conclusion.
Perhaps I should have expected this post to reignite the science behind the proposed lead ban, but thanks to BASC’s Dr Conor O'Gorman we have ended up with numerous links to scientific reports on the topic, so we are now better informed. Perhaps if someone has the time we can collate the links and post in dedicated thread?
It was harsh of me to describe the Shooting organisations voluntary lead ban as a farce, but as we have exposed they had no strategy for delivery, it was mainly hot air/wishful thinking. It has undoubtedly damaged these organisations (it’ not just BASC, thanks to Conor dogged responses they are in the firing line on SD) but collectedly all the signatory organisations and I belong to two of them.
When I say damaged, this extends to their members and potential members, while those who oppose our sport will be motivated to seek legislative changes as “voluntary” action by the shooting organisations is alas “hot air”.
What next, we await the Government’s response to the HSE proposals on lead, at that stage it’s political and I hope that all those who have contributed to this thread have contacted their MPs, I have but alas have a journeyman MP who rarely responds to constituents.
Then we have the consultation of changes to the firearms law, please read the inquest report on Keyham Maxine Davison, Lee Martyn, Sophie Martyn, Stephen Washington and Kate Shepherd: Prevention of future deaths report - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary which documents multiple political and police failures.
If Conor’s tenacity is replicated by BASC and the other shooting organisations, we might make progress, and avoid diluting police efforts on why I need 3x 12 bore shotguns with all the stupidity that the legislation imposes on firearms extended to shotguns, or I might need different shotguns for lead and steel - that tongue in cheek
heads down!
Perhaps I should have expected this post to reignite the science behind the proposed lead ban, but thanks to BASC’s Dr Conor O'Gorman we have ended up with numerous links to scientific reports on the topic, so we are now better informed. Perhaps if someone has the time we can collate the links and post in dedicated thread?
It was harsh of me to describe the Shooting organisations voluntary lead ban as a farce, but as we have exposed they had no strategy for delivery, it was mainly hot air/wishful thinking. It has undoubtedly damaged these organisations (it’ not just BASC, thanks to Conor dogged responses they are in the firing line on SD) but collectedly all the signatory organisations and I belong to two of them.
When I say damaged, this extends to their members and potential members, while those who oppose our sport will be motivated to seek legislative changes as “voluntary” action by the shooting organisations is alas “hot air”.
What next, we await the Government’s response to the HSE proposals on lead, at that stage it’s political and I hope that all those who have contributed to this thread have contacted their MPs, I have but alas have a journeyman MP who rarely responds to constituents.
Then we have the consultation of changes to the firearms law, please read the inquest report on Keyham Maxine Davison, Lee Martyn, Sophie Martyn, Stephen Washington and Kate Shepherd: Prevention of future deaths report - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary which documents multiple political and police failures.
If Conor’s tenacity is replicated by BASC and the other shooting organisations, we might make progress, and avoid diluting police efforts on why I need 3x 12 bore shotguns with all the stupidity that the legislation imposes on firearms extended to shotguns, or I might need different shotguns for lead and steel - that tongue in cheek
heads down!
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
I can’t vouch for the truth of the following story, but I was told it by a member of FACE who was.
When the Danish lead ban for wildfowl was proposed, an exemption was sought for goose hunters. At a meeting with the minister she asked how many cartridges were fired per goose bagged.
83 was the answer.
The minister went nuts and told the hunters that not only were they not getting any exemption, if they didn’t get the kill to cartridge ratio much lower, she would have no choice but to close the goose season down entirely for animal welfare reasons.
The hunters both adopted non lead alternatives, and reduced their kill to cartridge ratios by shooting only when they were fairly certain of a kill.
Maybe they were right ?
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
Someone could produce a review of the science in a dedicated thread as you suggest but I think it would be best as a 'sticky' with comments switched off, so that people could read the science and come to their own conclusions rather than having to wade through 20 pages of comments from us all. The lead debate will continue and there will be policy updates ahead for GB and the EU. Attached are some articles/letters in last two issues of Shooting Times.As I provided the opening post, it’s perhaps time to draw this post to a conclusion.
Perhaps I should have expected this post to reignite the science behind the proposed lead ban, but thanks to BASC’s Dr Conor O'Gorman we have ended up with numerous links to scientific reports on the topic, so we are now better informed. Perhaps if someone has the time we can collate the links and post in dedicated thread?
It was harsh of me to describe the Shooting organisations voluntary lead ban as a farce, but as we have exposed they had no strategy for delivery, it was mainly hot air/wishful thinking. It has undoubtedly damaged these organisations (it’ not just BASC, thanks to Conor dogged responses they are in the firing line on SD) but collectedly all the signatory organisations and I belong to two of them.
When I say damaged, this extends to their members and potential members, while those who oppose our sport will be motivated to seek legislative changes as “voluntary” action by the shooting organisations is alas “hot air”.
What next, we await the Government’s response to the HSE proposals on lead, at that stage it’s political and I hope that all those who have contributed to this thread have contacted their MPs, I have but alas have a journeyman MP who rarely responds to constituents.
Then we have the consultation of changes to the firearms law, please read the inquest report on Keyham Maxine Davison, Lee Martyn, Sophie Martyn, Stephen Washington and Kate Shepherd: Prevention of future deaths report - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary which documents multiple political and police failures.
If Conor’s tenacity is replicated by BASC and the other shooting organisations, we might make progress, and avoid diluting police efforts on why I need 3x 12 bore shotguns with all the stupidity that the legislation imposes on firearms extended to shotguns, or I might need different shotguns for lead and steel - that tongue in cheek
As to proposals ahead on firearms law and licensing, and other policy issues, I will share BASC calls to action as they arise and that is when the loudest mouths on forums tend to lose their voice. As ever it was.
Attachments
Modelling then.
Which absolutely depends on accurate inputs and the parameters set to extrapolate data. All subjective in any research, on any topic. Not a great track record with models, ill refer you to Ferguson et al at Imperial College, 2020.
Have the GWCT scientists used the actual scientific method? There is certainly a hypothesis, but which tests have been carried out, and which conclusions have been drawn to modify the hypothesis? It rather seems the hypothesis has remained constant on the basis that ingested lead is toxic but which observations and testing outcomes indicate there is a significant issue to birds ingesting lead shot when wetlands have steel shot over them?
If its human health, then labelling warning shot with lead would seem proportionate. If fauna, then a choice between quick killing or injuring might seem more appropriate than an estimate of lead poisoning when there is little empirical evidence of this in the UK.
The organisations would bring their memberships with them if they employed some common sense and lobbied for other mitigation, with steel shot over wetlands being the major mitigation since 1999…
Conor O'Gorman
Well-Known Member
You would have to take that up with the GWCT. The shooting organisations trust the GWCT's scientific judgement on the impact of lead shot and many other topics of relevance to shooting and conservation going back decades.
Below is some recent research the GWCT has been involved in and I would imagine any of us reading the results would be likely to agree with it without much resistance because it aligns with our existing beliefs about foxes. Post that research into your local FB group and see what the reaction might be of the fox feeders - denial, critique, blame - much the same as what happens with lead shot research on a shooting forum. Such is human nature.
New research shows human food waste is fuelling foxes and putting pressure on threatened bird species
A new study by the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) and Bournemouth University (BU) has found that foxes in the New Forest are consuming large quantities of human food waste, which is likely to be keeping their numbers artificially high. The research estimates that of those foxes removed over the course of a year by wildlife managers, the proportion being sustained by human food waste could be as high as 65%.
Woodenbeam
Well-Known Member
OMG........Coner your content to this thread is awful at times.You would have to take that up with the GWCT. The shooting organisations trust the GWCT's scientific judgement on the impact of lead shot and many other topics of relevance to shooting and conservation going back decades.
Below is some recent research the GWCT has been involved in and I would imagine any of us reading the results would be likely to agree with it without much resistance because it aligns with our existing beliefs about foxes. Post that research into your local FB group and see what the reaction might be of the fox feeders - denial, critique, blame - much the same as what happens with lead shot research on a shooting forum. Such is human nature.
New research shows human food waste is fuelling foxes and putting pressure on threatened bird species
A new study by the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) and Bournemouth University (BU) has found that foxes in the New Forest are consuming large quantities of human food waste, which is likely to be keeping their numbers artificially high. The research estimates that of those foxes removed over the course of a year by wildlife managers, the proportion being sustained by human food waste could be as high as 65%.
I had pretty much turned off but you coming up with fox articles just beggars belief - I can see where you are coming from but two wrongs do not make a right and you are going off topic. Ya like a horse with blinkers on.
Can't see why you can't just admit ya wrong about this lead & shooting malarky
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
I think he has been on one of them 'Pass the Book' courses at some point.
Diversion tactics, a vague tactic to get the dumb masses to follow their agenda/ narrative.
It's been going on for centuries in Britain, slowly eroding freedom of choice unless a choice falls within an approved tick box!
Diversion tactics, a vague tactic to get the dumb masses to follow their agenda/ narrative.
It's been going on for centuries in Britain, slowly eroding freedom of choice unless a choice falls within an approved tick box!
As the GWCT’s scientific judgement states
“ Is there any evidence that lead is having a population level impact on wildfowl ?
Whilst there are negative impacts on individual birds exposed to lead,studies have not shown a direct effect of lead shot exposure to wild bird populations in the UK“
“ Is lead shot exposure having an impact on gamebirds?
There is evidence that gamebirds can ingest shot into the gizzards when taking in grit , however this is seen at a lower level than in wildfowl. A GWCT study published in 2005 found that 4.5% of found dead birds contained shot into the their gizzard and estimated that 1.2 % of living wild grey partridges contained shot into ingested shot at any one time. Other studies report similar findings in pheasants and red legged partridges but do not record negative impacts on bird health. One study in Canada demonstrated elevated lead levels in the liver of pheasants and some partridge species ,without analysing the health consequences for those birds. There is not enough evidence to know if lead shot exposure is having an effect”
Isn’t it time GWCT scientific findings were used to reflect the inadequacy of the scientific case for further lead shot restrictions ? The quoted information highlights that the evidenced scale of lead shot impact on wild bird populations you insist is occurring,as stated ad nauseum to support your case for lead shot restrictions , simply does not exist.
Do you trust the GWCT’s scientific judgement on the impact of lead shot ?
As the loudest mouth in the crusade to have lead shot restrictions accepted I assume you consider the scientific basis to justify such restrictions is strong enough , seemingly contrary to the evidence presently available and highlighted by GWCT. Can you state the evidence that you are relying on to substantiate your views and perhaps convince those sceptical of your intentions that your drive to have lead shot restrictions in place has a sound scientific justification?
I can answer that for you
post #311 The shooting organisations trust the GWCT's scientific judgement on the impact of lead shot and many other topics of relevance to shooting and conservation going back decades.
With a lead ban now in sight, the likes of WJ are now focused on killing for fun, if we think the lead ban will secure game shooting, then clearly others have a different agenda.
today.
Private Eye and unpleasant Pheasant facts 2. – Wild Justice
wildjustice.org.uk
Smellydog
Well-Known Member
I've been saying for a decade plus now, large scale commercial shoots are unsustainable and unethical.I can answer that for you
The shooting organisations trust the GWCT's scientific judgement on the impact of lead shot and many other topics of relevance to shooting and conservation going back decades.
With a lead ban now in sight, the likes of WJ are now focused on killing for fun, if we think the lead ban will secure game shooting, then clearly others have a different agenda.
today.
Private Eye and unpleasant Pheasant facts 2. – Wild Justice
They are a pr disaster and ruining our choice to hunt game.
They are attempting to prop up a burnt out house!
Dunwaters
Well-Known Member
Theres certainly a lot to criticise in the game shooting world, but in most of the country there’ll be feck all game of any type to shoot without it. That includes the deer that are safely harboured in the coverts undisturbed and unmolested.
Producing viable populations of game sufficient to support even modest walked up days is difficult, expensive and unreliable.
It’s a sad fact that for a host of reasons wild game doesn’t breed and prosper reliably here, it never has without help.
Here our “Gun clubs” are based on a few locals getting together, building a pen and putting down some birds every year.
We do it every year because theres virtually no recruitment from wild birds, with the exception of Mallard, they’re doing quite well. Even if we did have some recruitment, there simply aren’t enough wild birds around to support a harvest and leave a viable breeding nucleus on the ground.
Game shooting is expensive as it is, if it wasn’t propped up by relatively inexpensive reared game it would truly be a sport of Kings, the pastime that billionaires would take up solely to escape the hordes of ignorant common millionaires, us plebs wouldn’t even be allowed to peep over the fence.
Whether you agree with commercial shoots or not, a lot of what shooting we’ve got nowadays is based on their wanderers and strays.
May be the fact that wild game birds don’t do well is an indicator that they aren’t designed by nature to be there in the first place?
Where I grew up greys are still prevalent but farming hasn’t really changed from the 70s.
Could that be the reason why greys are missing from where they were previously established in areas of England?
- Status
Similar threads
